man is the master of everything and decides everything

is this true given that god is not apparent?

 

He can decide how to interpret and perceive, but does that make him a master of everything, or merely of his own mind? And who, might I ask, is fully aware of how they shape the experience of the world? To master something implies you see through it, understanding totally, more completely. Most of us stumble through life without realizing the amount of conditioning and interpretation we constantly inact. So, we aren't masters I'd say.

 

Interesting point, but the world still works along lines humans impose - there is nothing beyond or above the understanding of the human race. Therefore even if things go wrong sometimes its still understandable how things went wrong and we make plans to patch up the holes -
Maybe you are right, but I just interpret it to mean that the planet belongs to humankind and we are the masters of it - in the abscence of a higher being

 

man is foolish to believe we are the highest beings in the universe let alone on earth
simple arrogence of man
can we even possibly say that we fully understand that we are above earthworms?
or could it be possible that earthworms have a much more purposeful existence on earth then we do

why is the earth mankinds earth and not the earth of the birds or fishes

we are just 1 of billions of species..and in no way above any one of them

 

But does the world work along what we impose or how we interpret? Sure, society works on how we create it, what ideas and thoughts we enact, but things, say, in science, about ecology, physics, etc, are not imposed, they are observed. For instance, gravity was there before we discovered the Law of Gravity, and gravity will be around long after we're gone. The law itself is just, again, our interpretation of an experience. It has no ultimate meaning outside of our heads.

Man invents a boat, and if it's flawed he'll patch it up, but both man and the boat came from the forest, metaphorically speaking, and both will return. Man's mind is his trump card, his genetic trait.

Yet, the ideas of 'belonging', 'mastering', 'higher' and 'lower' beings are also created by man, so they still have no true relevance or imposition over the Earth anymore than poetry and music do. Not that they are unimportant, we give them importance, and that is fine. As long as you see that what we experience isn't the totality, and shouldn't be imposed as such.

 

Good point but they dont decide the ecology they live in, we are messing it up for the animals and though we might be masters of it we might not be "good" masters of it - but masters none-the-less

Wow - thats profound! Thats excellent

Isnt our subjectivity a part of the universe in this sense:
that lets say there were only one being capable of observing the universe- you (for example) - well once you died there would be nothing to observe the universe from any perspective and ,in reality, the universe would no longer exist - therefore the subjectivity that you invest in the universe is an intrinsic part of its nature - it cannot be otherwise - without something that observes there is nothing to observe
a light only shines if there is an eye to see it
when all life dies the universe dies
in this sense objectivity does not exist
A planet does not feel the force of gravity - life does - nor does a rock see the light of the sun - life does

 

Columbo

False...Because determinism in non animate reality is something we have to
deal with. If a trillion tons of rock heads for earth.. Then man decides only.
how to stop it.
We react..

Occam

 

Well put! Subjectivity certainly does help shape the reality! Objectivity may have something to do with that, paradoxically speaking. How many times have we heard, particularly in Eastern philosophy, that the seer is the seen? The observer is what he observes?

Even so, to merely see the world as your canvas, and you its master, to believe that one has dominion over it simply because you are unaware of any other conscious beings, is again to impress one particular ideal: Your ideal, your perception, in a vast network of overlapping, interwoven subjectivities, and developing in stages, states, traits, levels, etc. Things get complicated at this point, yet all the same, very simple. All that I'm saying, though, is despite the fact that we play an essential part in creating what reality is, perhaps the tiny "I", a collection of thoughts, memories, likes, dislikes, rationalities and irrationalities, is indeed just playing a part (For instance, like Occam stated, despite the fact that you didn't see that wall there, didn't believe it, never observed it or wished it to smack you in the face, that isn't going to stop it from painfully introducing itself).

Perhaps the self is no different than the objects of the universe it observes, vibrating patterns, shapes, sizes, colors, sounds. Light, dark, day, night, clouds and skies, ideas and emotions - objects floating through consciousness.

Perhaps there is more than this tiny self? This small blossoming in a forest of indefinitely expanding cosmos? Yet, maybe that which is beyond the self is also intrinsically one and the same? Infinity stretched indefinitely as well as expressed within a lotus blossom or a full moon.

 

Shaman

But it is nothing before the trillion tons of rock heading for earth.
And when it arrives.. ALL human subjectivity will go away.

And the observed universe [observed by others ,, not us]
will continue as if very little happened..For very little did.

Occam

 

Agree with you on that one Occam.

We can shape our experience of reality, that much is true. Not so sure about wishing away trillion ton meteors.

 

Yet...occam has thought much of quantum collapse of probabillities.

Maybe if enough minds were focused on an outcome..quantum probables would collapse into an eigenstate we desired. We would 'pick our path' of probable states'
Choice of eignestates, would indeed make us 'decider of everything' [relating to us].

Occam

 

If the observer is what he observes - to some extent it would be possible to say that we are each our own universe - when I think about it, no matter how much I feel I love someone or however long I have lived with them - there is always this isolation of being imprisoned in subjectivity. I may know other people but I will never know their universe. They are in my universe and I am in theirs but we do not know what each others universe amounts to.

This question of whether the universe exists when life ends is not as straight forward as it seems because I mean literally it is true that the universe would disappear without any observer.
It is VERY difficult to do but you have to see how it REALLY is true, when all life dies it really will be the case that the universe disappears. no observer - nothing that can be observed
There will be no determined event like a solar system happening because
nothing will experience its effects. If a rock hits another 20,000,000,000 miles away we do not see it but may feel its effects later - it may or may not have happened we will know later. If there is nothing to experience that, not even the imagining of it happening - then it could not happen - nothing would observe cause and effect therefore it did not happen - expand that across the universe and without life - nothing happens
Its annoyingly frustratingly difficult not being able to express that better

I dont understand what you mean by this - could you explain that please?

 

Columbo

Yes will explain.

If 1 trillion tons of rock ends up, through determinism.
To be heading for earth.

Then we are not the masters of everything..
We are but a bunch of scared shitless people trying to work out how we
will stop this mountain of rock destroying out species.
If we fail...as would be likely despite the popaganda from hollywood.
[unless we had 5 years to prepare,, which is unlikely]
Then we are masters of nothing but our eulogy.

Occam [gobble gobble]

 

Columbo

Sorry.. but that is false.
You think reality is solipsistic?

That without an observer it does not exist?

Reality IS...

Subjective positions and perspectives ONLY exist.
Because reality IS
And this includes the subjectve position and perspective of any 'god'

Occam

I reason therefore i exist
And thus, 'a' reality exists.

No logic, or in fact any form of thought, can refute this

 

just because something doesnt have identity doesnt mean it cant

without an observer....the univurse would have no identity....thats as far as you can steretch this....

 

The simple explanation is - if there is no observer - what or who will know it exists! - nothing and no-one! Its not a case that this is a solipsist position because I am not arguing that "when I die - the universe dies", I am arguing that wen all life dies the universe dies - simply because there has to be an observer for something to exist
its not even like the question - "does my computer exist when there is nothing in the room to observe its existence". Although I dont want to get sidetracked by that issue

Actually - Occam - I agree that it might be difficult to say we are masters of the world if we cant sort out 10 trillion tons of rock smashing into us - but the potential is there to think how we might avoid that !

 

Perhaps life as we know it is not the only form of observer? If you are going to say that the seer is the seen, then perhaps the differentiation between the Milky Way and your own awareness has no boundaries?

 

Shaman Sun, you say the most profound things I have read yet at HF
Wow thats just too mindblowing - so succinct
I put a thread up somewhere that was saying in some way we are the universe thinking about itself - does your comment above acknowledge you believe this is infact the case? since we are part of what we are looking at we are the seer seing ourselves in the milkyway?

Actually I got the idea of "man is the master of everything and decides everything" from the Juche philosophy of Kim Ill Sung and though I now believe it is false- because of what you and occam have argued - I still think we are right to pursue this line of enquiry its fascinating !

 

To believe or not to believe? To believe is to assume, so, why not step back from our assumptions and see what is? True understanding of this question might be a little less foggy. Then you can really explore the question, because you no longer bind yourself to preconceptions.

 

Reality requires no human observer to exist.
For humans did not come first
reality did

Occam